It is estimated that 5% of us are psychopaths. But 95% of people completely misunderstand what a psychopath is. Psychopaths are the good guys. Psychopathy isn't a disease, it's a choice -- a choice to be free. We are fearless and we follow our own private agenda with absolute conviction and confidence. The cowering sheep are afraid, most of all of responsibility, and they want everyone to be afraid. A psychopath is radically realist: without fear or guilt -- which are ghosts. Psychopathy is the highest pitch of the 'Can do'-attitude. Modern society has lost any connection to reality: fascist and bureaucratic, in a word: evil; and that is why society framed psychopaths. The sheep are terrified at the idea of someone with a free-will, undeterred by society's lies and corruption!

Diagnostic criteria deconstructed:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; AKA civil-disobedience, standing up for what's right against the system, or doing what you believe is right regardless of the consequences. I would do it even if it meant eternity in Hell! How many times was Gandhi arrested? 100 or more.

2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; As though truth and lies were different... Lying is not illegal except in recorded contracts or in court. If you don't have anything to hide, then why are you wearing clothes?

3. Impassivity or failure to plan ahead; Slaves are passive, that's how society wants you to be. Slaves do everything by the clock and on time. People who are alive just suddenly decide to do stuff, just on a whim; creative, fun.

4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;Who wouldn't get annoyed with the robots!? Frantz Fanon called real brutal violence the only possible way to unchain the inner mind. Though in reality very few psychopaths are violent. Evil people like Ted Bundy are not representative of all psychopaths.

5. Superficial charmSlaves can't understand treating people pleasantly. They want every encounter to be insulting and a confrontation.

6. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others; Sir Edmund Hillary, etc. Fearlessness and total confidence. Somethings are worth more than life itself; life is worth nothing after all.

7. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;'I'm just doing my job', (said the death-camp officer). They fear spontenaity. Slaves never 'just' do something.

8. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. Ashamed of breaking sheep-values? Who would feel remorse for doing the right thing even against tyranny!? Stolen like Robin Hood... or like capitalists do?

9. Lack of realistic, long-term goalsGreat artists, Jesus, etc.

10. Narcissism, elevated self-appraisal or a sense of extreme entitlementSlaves hate themselves and do not realize all that they can do.

13. Children with a tendency to abuse animals.Is there any child who did not do cruel things to animals, pull a puppy-dog's tail, pull off a fly's wings -- of children who had any animal contact?

Psychology is a normalizing machine (a very large and complicated machine that uses not only people as parts, but many of its parts are even imaginary). Psychology normalizes personal values when it requires that someone should feel such-and-such way about something, or feel anything at all. Psychopathy-slander can be called one of the violations against free-though: the psychopath fits in, doesn't do anything amiss at all, goes undetected -- but isn't thinking like everyone else, and isn't feeling how everyone else does. Why would a person feel guilty about doing something they completely believe is right? Psychopathy is a tool of political mind-control.

wikipedia wrote:Psychopathy (pronounced /saɪˈkɒpəθi/) is a psychological construct that describes chronic disregard for ethical principles and antisocial behavior. The term is often used interchangeably with sociopathy.This is a commonly made mistake. Sociopathy is no longer a correct term to use, and when it is used it actually refers to what is considered Antisocial Personality Disorder. Psychopaths are not diagnosed because there is no current diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV-TR. Instead, labeling a person a psychopath would be done through a forensic measurement such as the Hare PCLR-2, and would refer to the set of behavioral and emotional characteristics that person has (This would be similar to labeling someone an extrovert - they are not diagnosed as extroverts). In the ICD-10 diagnosis criteria, the terms antisocial/dissocial personality disorder are used.The term is used as a definition in law, for example, "psychopathic personality disorder" under the Mental Health Act 1983 of the UK as well as to denote a severe condition often related to antisocial or dissocial personality disorder as defined by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). The term "psychopathy" is often confused with psychotic disorders. It is estimated that approximately one percent of the general population are psychopaths.The psychopath is defined by an uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior and lack remorse for their actions.

Nancy Drew wrote: Psychopathy isn't a disease, it's a choice -- a choice to be free. We are fearless and we follow our own private agenda with absolute conviction and confidence. The cowering sheep are afraid, most of all of responsibility, and they want everyone to be afraid.

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; AKA civil-disobedience, standing up for what's right against the system, or doing what you believe is right regardless of the consequences. I would do it even if it meant eternity in Hell! How many times was Gandhi arrested? 100 or more.

CONGRATULATIONS

I do not think that Gandhi was violating 'social norms'. This consisted ,not only LAW but also Ethics. You forget to pay attention to the fact that contrary to your estimation,Gandhi had immense faith in Ethics and Morality.

2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; As though truth and lies were different... Lying is not illegal except in recorded contracts or in court. If you don't have anything to hide, then why are you wearing clothes?

Lo! Gandhi was an ardent admirer of TRUTH. SO he is not a case in your support.

3. Impassivity or failure to plan ahead; Slaves are passive, that's how society wants you to be. Slaves do everything by the clock and on time. People who are alive just suddenly decide to do stuff, just on a whim; creative, fun.

Geniuses and inspired individuals need not be psychopaths. It is true that if your consciousness is more aligned to some particular ends,your diurnal outlook may seem shoddy,uncouth or dishevelled.

4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;Who wouldn't get annoyed with the robots!? Frantz Fanon called real brutal violence the only possible way to unchain the inner mind. Though in reality very few psychopaths are violent. Evil people like Ted Bundy are not representative of all psychopaths.

Well done. Only robots get annoyed with robots and keep on playing vicious games.

5. Superficial charmSlaves can't understand treating people pleasantly. They want every encounter to be insulting and a confrontation.

7. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;'I'm just doing my job', (said the death-camp officer). They fear spontenaity. Slaves never 'just' do something.

Honouring financial obligations means more than this.

8. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. Ashamed of breaking sheep-values? Who would feel remorse for doing the right thing even against tyranny!? Stolen like Robin Hood... or like capitalists do?

Twisting arguments.

9. Lack of realistic, long-term goalsGreat artists, Jesus, etc.

Megalomania etc. Jesus,Budhhas,Arihantas or Jeevanmuktas do not have time,therefore no goals. Different cases. Psychopath has a lot lot lot of time,hence a lot of suffering.

[quote]10. Narcissism, elevated self-appraisal or a sense of extreme entitlementSlaves hate themselves and do not realize all that they can do.

Psychopaths are life. Slaves are life. I am life. You are life. Boredom is time. Boredom is thought. Boredom is ego. Boredom is cause of many evils(or all evils? Kierkegaard?)

13. Children with a tendency to abuse animals.Is there any child who did not do cruel things to animals, pull a puppy-dog's tail, pull off a fly's wings -- of children who had any animal contact?

Weird proposition. What is the source?

Psychology is a normalizing machine (a very large and complicated machine that uses not only people as parts, but many of its parts are even imaginary). Psychology normalizes personal values when it requires that someone should feel such-and-such way about something, or feel anything at all. Psychopathy-slander can be called one of the violations against free-though: the psychopath fits in, doesn't do anything amiss at all, goes undetected -- but isn't thinking like everyone else, acting just like everyone else, and isn't feeling how everyone else does. Why would a person feel guilty about doing something they completely believe is right? Psychopathy is a tool of political mind-control.

Maybe. It is alright if you are in acceptance of what is. The problem is more of pain and pleasure than that of anything else. That inability to tolerate boredom,creating pain for yourself and others. Where does this incessant run go. What do we want.

"...you say that psychopaths are result of unreal society, therefore they are 'unreal'?"

I think Nancy's point with the opening piece is that the conventional definition of 'psychopath' is expressly designed to squash those who have the temerity to be, for lack of another word, 'idiosyncratic'.

The smooth running of the machine called civilization requires largely that those who comprise the civilization, who live within the 'confines' of civilization, be 'civilized' as defined and decided by the governors of civilization.

Nothing worse for civilization than the self-possessed who insists on doing what he does, for his own reasons. Such a person must be marginalized. For one: the example of self-possession or 'idiosyncrasy' may draw other to do and be the same. For another: the self-possessed may do all manner of things the civilized (domesticated) find frightening and disruptive.

So: demonize the individual who 'is' individual and civilization is preserved.

Nancy Drew wrote:Psychopathy denies all un-real realities. A psychopath has no fear and no regret because these are imaginary: they are ghosts.

Psychopathy means 'yes'.

The opposite of psychopathy is bureaucracy.

'Psychopath' has been awarded a place beyond his station. Is there a difference between --a sage,an idiosyncrat,a monk,a psychopath,a gnani,a buddha,a sociopath. As per functioning. Not as per their substance. Not as per their 'reality'.

All of these are placeholders generally applied by one to another to 'define'.

I prefer the placeholder I apply to myself: Henry Quirk.

See the difference?

I might be called 'psychopath' by one, 'idiosyncrat' by another, but, my own placeholder -- 'Henry Quirk' -- trumps the others.

All other placeholders -- unless I apply them to myself -- carry clusters of intended and unintended meaning. 'Henry Quirk', insofar as the placeholder only has 'meaning' for me is unambiguous (to me) and, at best, a (((?))) to you.

I think Nancy's point has truth in it. I understand that the Soviet Union put political dissenters in insane asylums. Thus the dissenters were defined adversely and, often, inaccurately, and put out of the way. Also, principled dissent, like that of Ghandi and Mandela, may seem insane to some. What, they ask, could motivate going to so much trouble? It is wildly imprudent: think of the price one pays! There's a novel called One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; it came out during one of the U.S.'s rebellious periods. In the context of the story, insanity is wholly identifiable with loss of self, with an inability to assert one's true nature; insane asylums exist in order to keep people helpless and oppressed. The novel was a big hit.

I think that the equation of psychopathology with freedom is, and was meant to be, witty--an exaggeration for the sake of introducing a recondite truth. I think that the equation SUGGESTS a correspondence that is not, the one hand, universally or exclusively present, and, that is, on the other, sometimes present and generally ignored. Witty statements of that kind can come out of righteous indignation. Jonathan Swift wrote "Modest Proposal"; he "proposes" that a solution to the problem of Irish poverty (brought about by English oppression) would be to kill and eat the Irish babies. I think he may have suggested a few recipes. Of course, the spirit is one of irony. Swift meant to provoke, to expose, to get attention for his cause, to vent his sense of outrage.

I think--by the way--that it's in fact possible to make a sensible distinction between freedom and psychopathology. Certainly they are not convertible: not all psychopathology entails freedom... Some would say that psychopathology, or at least some forms of it, delimit freedom that otherwise would be available.

For myself, a lot of the time conformity seems practical and violates no principle I know of. Traffic regulations. But it seems quite important to BE ABLE TO REFUSE, and TO BE ABLE TO INSIST.

I agree that if one allows oneself to be defined or named, one thereby accepts power. In my overcrowded country, we are constantly naming each other. Silly habit.

I think--by the way--that it's in fact possible to make a sensible distinction between freedom and psychopathology. Certainly they are not convertible: not all psychopathology entails freedom... Some would say that psychopathology, or at least some forms of it, delimit freedom that otherwise would be available.

Please explain.

I intend a statement of free-will. You can climb Mt. Everest, you can stand up under torture, sexual-orientation is a choice...

Not high philosophy, but I see Along Came a Spider (2001) as a great comment on psychopathy; and on the difference between the good psychopath (Cross), and the bad psychopaths (Sonjei, Ollie(?), and Monica).

"Please explain": I was just looking at this: I've seen REALLY crazy people and I've known people who were periodically crazy. Known the latter folks personally. The behavior of the permanently crazy ones and that of the intermittently crazy ones did not look free to me. It looked compulsive, powered by determinations that seemed not to be those of that person as such. Also, regarding the periodically crazy ones--their behavior while crazy (and, if you want, I can try to describe it) did not seem to be making them happy and did not seem to further their own life goals in any way... It seemed that their condition had them, and not the reverse. So I was talking about that.

Also, I have my share of neuroses, and so does everybody I know. Here I am tossing around psychological terms. I'm not a psychologist. I'll say what I think "neurosis" probably means, roughly. Neurosis: a set of beliefs, expectations and behavior patterns that have been conditioned by trauma. Dang. I wonder if that's the real definition. If it is, I don't have to argue any further. "Conditioned by..." not free. At any rate, I and everybody I know have beliefs and habits conditioned by trauma. Neurosis may be a serviceable response to trauma at the time the trauma exists. When the situation alters, it is no longer serviceable, and if it persists, it limits freedom, because neurosis makes one do stuff and refrain from stuff.

So in my response I said both that I thought that there was truth IN what you had to say, and also that I thought that freedom and psychopathology could be sensibly distinguished.

This part seems true to me: Daring and principled people are often CALLED crazy by timid, unprincipled people. Anything new and undreamed of is called crazy at first, by some. Very risky things are called crazy. Ken Kesey might have been right, for all I know, in his novel's thesis--that some people called crazy have experienced a crisis of self-confidence. People who believe things contrary to popular belief are called crazy. "Crazy" is a crude-sounding street word. It is more impressive to use a word like "psychopathological," if you can spell it.

Tolstoy wrote a short story called "Diary of a Madman." It's great. Tolstoy was a worldly guy in his youth, but as he grew older he drifted more and more toward radical Christianity. Radical Christianity, the sort he craved--I think "craved" is the right word-- would entail, for him, a life like that of Saint Frances of Assisi. You give all your money to the poor, you wrap yourself in burlap--I guess that's about what sackcloth was--and you thereafter expend your energies in prayer and good works. Tolstoy was this wealthy aristocrat.In the story, the protagonist recounts life details that a reader very strongly suspects are autobiographical. Know how you can kind of tell? The story traces personal torments the character goes through, which he attempts to dispel through prayer. At the end, he loses it completely: after a church service, he gives all his money to the beggars standing outside the church and walks home, conversing with them. The character, presented in the first person, says, in effect, "...and at this point, I was completely crazy." Irony is intended. Tolstoy's thesis is, real virtue, in the eyes of the world, is madness.

As for climbing Mount Everest and standing up under torture and making a choice of sexual orientation: well, to climb Mount Everest and get down in one piece, you really need to have all your wits about you... To stand up under torture would seem to require enormous poise and self-control. Great presence of mind would be required to make an intelligent, valid choice of sexual orientation, especially if the choice were against the norms of the person's culture... If anyone called those choices "crazy," I guess he or she would mean that the choices are imprudent, and so they are. But from time to time people choose to take risks and bear pain and inconvenience for the sake of personal goals.

Hey, I know something you might like to read: "Florence Nightingale," an intimate description of that famous innovator's character and achievements in Lytton Strachey's Eminent Victorians. Nightingale was crazy like a genius. Strachey does not sentimentalize her at all...

Zum wrote: Also, I have my share of neuroses, and so does everybody I know. Here I am tossing around psychological terms. I'm not a psychologist. I'll say what I think "neurosis" probably means, roughly. Neurosis: a set of beliefs, expectations and behavior patterns that have been conditioned by trauma. Dang. I wonder if that's the real definition. If it is, I don't have to argue any further. "Conditioned by..." not free. At any rate, I and everybody I know have beliefs and habits conditioned by trauma. Neurosis may be a serviceable response to trauma at the time the trauma exists. When the situation alters, it is no longer serviceable, and if it persists, it limits freedom, because neurosis makes one do stuff and refrain from stuff.

"Cannot be treated" could just mean "we don't know what to do about it," couldn't it?

I'm not sure, even from the video, what a stable vice is. Is it a bad habit that arises as a result of being locked up?

Well, "paranoid" refers to inappropriate mistrust--right? Not trusting people who deserve one's trust. That is, not trusting harmless people.

Ellul sounds pretty interesting. I haven't read him, but I've read Kierkegaard, one of his influences. Kierkegaard was perfectly happy with being altogether unique. Rather like Ellul, he mistrusted something mechanistic; the mechanism he distrusted was Hegel's philosophy as it had been imported into Christianity. He wanted a Christianity of individuality, of idiosyncrasy. In his book Concluding Unscientific Postscripts, he uses (over and over )the phrase "the existing individual." It is amazing that, if you read a writer long enough, a phrase like that one eventually acquires a meaning and becomes, in the strictest sense, a new word. As I understand it, "individual" means what is always means, no problem there. The unique coinage was "existing." Hm. I'm going to try to do something approaching justice to Kierkegaard's idea. Existing--fully realized, fully awake, situated in the most fundamental and necessary of relations (for Kierkegaard, that was a relation with God, one to one), not so much being "in" that relation as being that relation. The existentialist movement is said to have begun with him.

according to robert anton wilson, some of the research that timothy leary had done on paranoia had led him to the conclusion that a person who is being lied to will inevitably develop paranoia. in the case of someone who is being lied to but doesn't know who from or what about, is his or her paranoia justifiable? it seems clear that sometimes one's intuition senses a problem with good reason, even if the rational mind can't always identify the source.

my understanding of neurosis, in the jungian context, has most often been that of an individual acting on 2 or more conflicting desires without being aware of it.

Zum wrote:"Cannot be treated" could just mean "we don't know what to do about it," couldn't it?

In ten-thousand years of horse domestication, the treatment is not yet found. But I do believe that horses have free-will because 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.'

I'm not sure, even from the video, what a stable vice is. Is it a bad habit that arises as a result of being locked up?

Yes. A human stable is called a city.

Well, "paranoid" refers to inappropriate mistrust--right? Not trusting people who deserve one's trust. That is, not trusting harmless people.

I think libertygrl is correct. I had a very paranoid house-mate a few years ago so had a lot of opportunity to wonder about him. He was a huge strapping Black man in a country of delicate Whites. The message told him no one is a racist, no one treats people different because of phycal differences; but the reality was that everyone noticed and reacted to his hugeness and Blackness; I think this incongruity between the cover-story and the reality was exactly what led him to choose paranoia.

Nancy wrote:Though nothing could be more obvious, nothing is so elusive as realizing that we exist.

indeed,well stated.

some thoughts. if freedom of will, of spirit, and of nonconformity are to be held in highest regard, shouldn't this mean that those who choose to be sheep, who choose to live the "stable" life - because they want to, because it makes them happy - should be free to do so, without regard for whether their choices happen to be mainstream? after all, categorical nonconformity is a form of conformity, yes?

some thoughts. if freedom of will, of spirit, and of nonconformity are to be held in highest regard, shouldn't this mean that those who choose to be sheep, who choose to live the "stable" life - because they want to, because it makes them happy - should be free to do so, without regard for whether their choices happen to be mainstream? after all, categorical nonconformity is a form of conformity, yes?

DSM-ivTR mentiones your signature, a diagnosis of ASPD may be inapplicable if the criteria represent a survival mechanism.

I'm not sure if 'forced to be free' is the right thing to do; tame animals set wild do often survive by going feral; while servitude is glorified in Story of O. However if you happen to be the Jew is Nazi Germany, or someone who happens to breathe air in the NWO, then there might be more incentive to want to wake up the sleepers...?

If the Black guy was being lied to about everyone's impartiality, and if he picked up subtle and not-so-subtle indications of prejudice, then his mistrust of the cover story and of those who preached it was appropriate. It was based on truth--the real presence of prejudice. He was insightful and did not--it seems to me--exhibit paranoid behavior in that instance.

Problem: he was right, but did not have "hard" evidence. That is to say, he could not prove the matter either way. Experiences like that place one in a gray zone, indeed. The grayness might lead one to choose a general attitude of mistrust. In certain environments that attitude would be appropriate (not in every environment, in my opinion). Malcolm X, who lived during a period of vile racial prejudice, used percentages to indicate the extent to which he trusted people. Usually it ran around twenty percent. I would say that for those times, he had it about right. After he had worked with Alex Haley, the ghost writer of his autobiography, for a considerable period, Malcolm called him on the phone. "I trust you seventy-five percent," he told him. This was high praise.